Your reaction to MPs’ pay deal Watch

Have Your Say
Badges: 0
#1
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#1
MPs have voted against giving themselves an above-inflation pay rise but opted to keep their £24,000 second homes allowance. Are you happy with this decision?

Members backed a 2.25% pay rise without a vote and rejected moves to boost their pay with a £650-a-year "catch-up" payment.

However, they rejected tougher auditing as well as an alternative expenses regime proposed by a Commons review.

Earlier, Prime Minister Gordon Brown urged MPs to vote for a below-inflation rise as an example to public sector workers.

What is your reaction to the vote? Should MPs be allowed to keep their second homes allowance? Is it time for an alternative payment system to be introduced?
*
Read the full story (on the BBC website)

Click here if you have any other story ideas (on the BBC website)
0
reply
e-lover
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 10 years ago
#2
It's below inflation, they still have a payloss.
0
reply
AnythingButChardonnay
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 10 years ago
#3
I watched the debate and votes and was surprised by one MP who pleaded poverty and by the fact that so few voted!

Scared perhaps?
0
reply
Solid_Snake_100
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 10 years ago
#4
they should have voted for an inflationary price rise...i would have.
0
reply
Ed.
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5
Report 10 years ago
#5
They vote on there own pay rises- I think what they got was quite restrained considering.
0
reply
Chike_Obi_soulman
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 10 years ago
#6
MP claiming poverty?.....wow
0
reply
AnythingButChardonnay
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 10 years ago
#7
(Original post by Chike_Obi_soulman)
MP claiming poverty?.....wow
Yes. It was a Labour MP who said his Dad was a miner, and that he could never have been an MP if it wasn't a paid job (which was the idea behind introducing MPs' pay in the first place - it didn't used to be paid). Fair enough.
But then he tried to claim that he wouldn't be able to afford to continue being an MP if it fell behind other public sector pay! What a load of rubbish! How on earth can earning £60k+, regardless of who else living off the taxpayer earns more, possibly make you poor? The man's living on another planet.
0
reply
meenu89
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 10 years ago
#8
(Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
Yes. It was a Labour MP who said his Dad was a miner, and that he could never have been an MP if it wasn't a paid job (which was the idea behind introducing MPs' pay in the first place - it didn't used to be paid). Fair enough.
But then he tried to claim that he wouldn't be able to afford to continue being an MP if it fell behind other public sector pay! What a load of rubbish! How on earth can earning £60k+, regardless of who else living off the taxpayer earns more, possibly make you poor? The man's living on another planet.

hopefully after the election he can claim unemployment benefit when the voters kick him out
0
reply
gamer91
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#9
Report 10 years ago
#9
why aren't their wages a weighted adverage of the public sector?
if its good enough to give everybody else, then it should be good enough for them.
0
reply
Teebs
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#10
Report 10 years ago
#10
There really isn't anything wrong in theory with the second homes allowance. MPs have to spend a lot of their time in London and when they live all over the country commuting simply isn't practical. It's just that some take the piss and get second homes when they live half an hour from the centre of London or something similar.
0
reply
Fusion
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 10 years ago
#11
Have you ever heard of so much backwardness in all your life - MP's (or indeed any workers) voting on their pay and expenses. Granted they settled for a lower rise (shrewd), they rejected reforming expenses (where food can be claimed)
0
reply
ChemistBoy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#12
Report 10 years ago
#12
(Original post by Fusion)
they rejected reforming expenses (where food can be claimed)
Subsistence is a standard expense for anyone working whilst travelling I don't see why MP's should be any different.
0
reply
Callik
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report 10 years ago
#13
If they require a residence in London why not provide set MP accommodation such as flats? Considering they aren't always around and they demonstrate sporadic attendance to debates and votes anyway why is it they need a fully furnished house in the most expensive part of the UK? Business expenses I can understand but is $24k per annum really needed? Even as a maximum limit it exceeds the minimum standard of living amount that research group came up with by around £10k. That's on top of what, £60k a year salary? A 2.25% on that still adds up to a tidy amount, compared to 2.25% of £20k.

Just gives you another reason (like you needed more) to second guess the motivation and trust-ability of politicians and the like.
0
reply
Wangers
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#14
Report 10 years ago
#14
They also gave themselves £30 a day for misc expenses. THe thieving buggers!
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (564)
37.65%
No - but I will (117)
7.81%
No - I don't want to (108)
7.21%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (709)
47.33%

Watched Threads

View All